Assassin's Creed III

Oh God, please, no more games set in 18th century America. When I was talking to Lafayette in Valley Forge and he was inviting me to come to France after the war I'm thinking YES! Take me with you! Get me out of this backwater shithole! I mean, revolutionary Paris really would seem like a logical next stop.

Click to expand...

I was really expecting AC3 to be set during the French Revolution and/or the Napoleonic Wars, just because of its similarities to the settings of AC1 and AC2 (lots of chaos and discord, lots of large cities to travel between and explore, three hundred years after the last game). I was a little puzzled when they chose the American Revolution instead because colonial America's largest cities were still tiny compared to, say, Paris, Bordeaux, and Marseille.

Overall I actually enjoyed the story of AC3 but the glitches and some of the core gameplay was a bit tough to swallow at times. I think their engine needs a bit more of an overhaul than they were willing to give it.

Well, finally got around to finishing it today. What a letdown. Overall, the gameplay was fine, but I just couldn't get into the setting or Connor as a protagonist. And I'm annoyed that once again the damn thing ended on a cliffhanger.

I'm actually a bit opposite of you - I thought the setting was great, Connor was a bit bland (actually Kenway was more interesting, IMO), and the gameplay was kind of non-existent other than in the ship battles. I think I mentioned this in the other thread that I would give it a 7/10 for a score. It's better than average, but not a great game by any means. The most disappointing thing overall was how hyped it was and how "just okay" it was.

I really wish that games like this would do a better job of incorporating the side missions into the story. There needs to be more of an incentive to do them. In this game, I attempted to do side missions in the beginning, but I soon realized that they weren't helping me accomplish anything, so I stopped and just focused on the story. Much like the last game with the weird roof attacks, once you do the initial tutorial mission, you never have to do anything like that the rest of the game. Once you finish the story, you just end up back in the world with all this random crap to do.

I really wish that games like this would do a better job of incorporating the side missions into the story. There needs to be more of an incentive to do them. In this game, I attempted to do side missions in the beginning, but I soon realized that they weren't helping me accomplish anything, so I stopped and just focused on the story. Much like the last game with the weird roof attacks, once you do the initial tutorial mission, you never have to do anything like that the rest of the game. Once you finish the story, you just end up back in the world with all this random crap to do.

Click to expand...

Oh man, those rooftop tower defense mini-games were the WORST. So glad they removed them. Though you're right - the side missions really haven't ever given super compelling reasons to finish them unless you're an achievement whore or a completionist (which I am, unfortunately). This time around at least the ship side missions had their own story running within, but it wasn't at all necessary to the plot.

I really wish that games like this would do a better job of incorporating the side missions into the story. There needs to be more of an incentive to do them. In this game, I attempted to do side missions in the beginning, but I soon realized that they weren't helping me accomplish anything, so I stopped and just focused on the story. Much like the last game with the weird roof attacks, once you do the initial tutorial mission, you never have to do anything like that the rest of the game. Once you finish the story, you just end up back in the world with all this random crap to do.

Click to expand...

Well, i thought the homestead missions where a nice diversion and they helped you get better gear...

I'm usually a completionist, but as hard as I try some of these optional missions are downright impossible. Even reloading checkpoints six or seven times, I can't seem to do them, which is sending me into a rage. So, I can only do two or three missions at a time before I turn the game off, in fear of breaking a $60 controller. And I'm a guy who LOVES the Assassin's Creed series (even the first one). But, I've decided this is my last one. They've sucked the fun out of the series. Right now I'm plowing through so I can see the damn ending and get it over with.

^Oh, there were some that were frustrating as all getout. The absolute worst is when you have to kill whatshisface before he tries to kill Washington right after the gallows bit, and to get full sync you have to prevent him from killing either of the bodyguards and WITH melee. And pretty much the only way you can pull it off is by the completely random chance that he'll stumble into someone and trip and fall. If he doesn't, there's zero chance you can reach him before he reaches the bodyguards.

But if you get stuck on something, just watch how it's successfully done on YouTube. That always works.

The absolute worst is when you have to kill whatshisface before he tries to kill Washington right after the gallows bit, and to get full sync you have to prevent him from killing either of the bodyguards and WITH melee. And pretty much the only way you can pull it off is by the completely random chance that he'll stumble into someone and trip and fall. If he doesn't, there's zero chance you can reach him before he reaches the bodyguards.

Click to expand...

Only if you insist on killing the other soldiers before killing whatshisface. Instead, tackle whatshisface to aggro him and keep him away from the body guards, then kill two guards, then kill whatshisface.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the kill two soldiers part of the requirement, but even so, I was always going for the guy first, and unless he'd bump into someone, he'd always reach the bodyguards before I could aggro him.

I seem to be an odd man out in this thread as I thought AC3 was excellent and on par with AC2 in its storytelling. Connor's struggle was well done in that he isn't really on anyone's side, just fighting to protect his tribe and keep them safe. The Templars were much better handled in this game than previous ones. For the first time since AC1 I could actually sympathize with them and their motives and felt sort of bad for killing them. The Templars of the Ezio trilogy seemed more like power hungry stereotypical villains.

I liked the openness of the frontier as having a sandbox area was something I missed in ACR. I thought the naval missions would be horrible but they were one of the best aspects of the game. I know there were complaints about the amount of cutscenes but some of them were truly exceptional, such as the last cut scene with Connor and Lee. Overall an amazing game.

I thought the game was fun, but the rough edges in the franchise are getting worse. Ubisoft needs to stop with the annual releases and allow their studios to refine the games lest they continue this spiral of decline. While the free-running controls are improved, they can still become a frustrating mess during chase sequences. The combat controls are also much improved, but now combat is easier than ever and it makes stealth unrewarding. The ship missions were fantastic, but I'd rather see them fleshed out into their own game than used as a limited side-mission in a franchise already suffering from feature-creep. The crafting/convoy system was pointless busywork with a terrible UI.

I actually liked the setting, maybe because I didn't have the American Revolution crammed down my throat from a young age so I wasn't overly familiar with it. I loved the frontier; it wasn't quite as good as RDR, but it was still really good. The game also has the best snow I've ever seen in an open-world game.

The Templars were much better handled in this game than previous ones. For the first time since AC1 I could actually sympathize with them and their motives and felt sort of bad for killing them. The Templars of the Ezio trilogy seemed more like power hungry stereotypical villains.

Click to expand...

Agreed, these Templars were far more interesting, especially Haytham, and there was a lot more moral complexity presented than in Ezio's story. Ezio was still a more fun character to play as, and his story in AC2 was more interesting than Connor's, but at least we didn't get comic-book villains like Cesare Borgia.

I thought the game was fun, but the rough edges in the franchise are getting worse. Ubisoft needs to stop with the annual releases and allow their studios to refine the games lest they continue this spiral of decline.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that ACIII wasn't an "annual" release - the team has been working on it for the last three years since ACII came out, while separate teams worked on AC:B and AC:R.

So while Ubisoft probably said "you need to have the game done by date X" (which the plot required too), it's not like they've been scrambling to get it all done since AC:R was finished.

It's true that AC3 was in development for longer than ACB or ACR, but all the games are suffering from a pressure to implement new features to justify the price of a full release every year, and the result is that AC3 feels schizophrenic. There's a lot of new features in AC3, they half-implemented a bunch of stuff from ACB and ACR, and they still haven't managed to fix the main complaints about the core gameplay mechanics.